[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

. . . But with his own integrity on the line, one would have hoped — as it turns out, against
hope — that Justice Scalia would have adopted a less belligerent, cynical and dismissive
voice in defending his willingness to sit on this important case. Instead we get a strident
brief, dripping with annoyed sarcasm that anyone would question his rectitude and, as it
turns out, one that raises far more questions than it answers, one that highlights the
infirmities of the good Justice’s self-assured stance. . . .
Justice Scalia addresses the issue of his host, Wallace Carline, a magnanimous
gentleman, who has been inviting Justice Scalia to Louisiana for years. On this occasion
Mr. Carline agreed, at Justice Scalia’s request, to invite the Vice-President, an avid duck
hunter, as well, an invitation the host permitted Justice Scalia to extend personally.
Justice Scalia tells us a lot more about what the host is not, than what he is. But this
must be very important because twice in the memorandum Justice Scalia addresses the issue
of how his host makes his less than modest living.
The host is not:
“an energy industry executive,”
“an oil company executive,”
“an oil man,”
“an energy company official,” or
“an oil industrialist.” . . .
What Justice Scalia apparently wanted to make clear was that his host was not an
“ExxonMobil” or “Con Ed” executive; he apparently was not a Halliburton executive
either, though the host’s wholly-owned company does sound an awful lot like a competitor
of Halliburton. I guess Justice Scalia is asserting that these oil field supply folks, unlike the
BP Unocal gang, are totally indifferent to the administration’s energy policy, not caring one
way or the other whether the Bush-Cheney administration allows off-shore or North Slope
drilling for petroleum. . . .
Only then does Justice Scalia address the trip on Air Force Two, the Vice President’s
personal jet that whisked Scalia and party to Louisiana. One of the most interesting aspects
of this disquisition is what Scalia does not address. While later we learn who was with
whom during the duck hunt, in the section of the opinion dealing with the sumptuous air
travel arrangements, that subject is studiously not discussed. From the opinion, all one
learns is that the complement included the Vice President and his staff and security detail,
Justice Scalia and his son and son-in-law, quite a cozy group for a multiple-hour plane ride
on a Gulfstream jet. Perhaps the cabin was too noisy for any conversation, unlike a duck
blind. But we will never know, though somehow we doubt it. In any event, we receive no
assurance that the justice was sequestered from the litigant. . . .
Finally, Justice Scalia addresses the duck hunting itself. We are told there were 13
hunters in all, a group Justice Scalia characterizes as “not intimate,” even “sizable,” perhaps
because he found the flight down so much more intime. We learn they took meals together.
One day they went fishing — in two boats. And though Justice Scalia studiously fails to tell
us whether he was in the Vice President’s fishing boat, we know that is where he fished
because when it came to the duck hunting, Justice Scalia makes it quite clear that Mr.
501